If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hell, I don't know. I read that even though they went on strike, the union never formally rejected the contract. The judge stated that he did not understand why they even went on strike or some shit. I know one thing for sure...they were making too much dough though that's for darn sure. Get it? Making too much dough...? Kind of a play on words there referring to...forget it.

HA! That's so funny. Making too much dough... I would have never though of that...

Hell, I don't know. I read that even though they went on strike, the union never formally rejected the contract. The judge stated that he did not understand why they even went on strike or some shit. I know one thing for sure...they were making too much dough though that's for darn sure. Get it? Making too much dough...? Kind of a play on words there referring to...forget it.

Oh, ok, so you have no idea how this is the union's fault, but it's the union's fault all the same. Seems legit.

And the 'thuggish' tactics you decry are the unions using one of the few strategies available to them - a crippling of the production process. Either through a removal of the labor force (a strike) or a takeover of the means of production.

In this case, the game had changed for the Bakers' Union. Taking a cut in benefits and an absurd cut in wages would not be in the interests of the workers - it's an absurd tactic by the employer to pretend that they are negotiating.

I very much doubt that Hostess ever had any other plan, staring into their second bankrupcy filing in a handful of years, than to dissolve and sell off their assets - including the brand. There is no negotiating in good faith any more - the modus operandi of corporations has become rapacious, predatory. Production is secondary to profits, and that mentality (unlike, unfortunately, the concentrated wealth it entails) trickles down through raised hours, cut benefits, no overtime.

Unions are one of the few remaining vestiges that hold out against the new labour paradigm - in that sense, they are definitely painted with the neo-Luddite tar brush since they are by and large skilled labour being replaced by automation+unskilled labour.

While you can see it as "I can't believe these people are standing in the way of progress!", Unions are doing their jobs - they represent (by-and-large) local labour forces. That's spending money in the local economy. By packing up the means of production and ignoring the union's negotiation process, it is pretty clear that you're going to end up with fat-cat money glut and unemployed workers that can't stimulate the local economy. Look at what happened to Detroit. Unionized workers are getting the shaft, by and large not because companies are losing money, but because their projected profits are not where they want them to be. They are not making enough money. "Cost-reduction" and "profit-maximization" are the name of the new game.

Can you blame union leaders for suggesting that they fight on? When the vote came down (newsflash, almost every union is democratic and decisions like striking are made by popular vote), can you blame workers for refusing to have their livelihoods (and those of their families) by a third in wages alone, and by more than a third if benefits are included?

I don't. They stood up - at least for a little while - and said "your number crunching is playing with people's lives, and it is not alright." They got screwed, but they were getting screwed anyway.

People are selling twinkies on e-bay for hundreds of dollars. Imagine how pissed the buyers will be if Hostess doesn't die.

Anyone who's willing to drop hundreds for a twinkie deserves to have it be a wasted venture, end of story.

I said, "Hi, Greg. I'm the creepy girl." He chuckled, then wanted a handshake and I gave it. I wanted a hug and he gave it. One of his sons was there, too. Cute. Then Pete got him to autograph my sign for me because I was too polite to ask myself since he was on his way to eat. Pete also took this of photo of him holding it. - 8/2/2014.https://twitter.com/PeteParada/statu...56317329436672
Our official webpage: http://offspringunderground.com/

Oh, ok, so you have no idea how this is the union's fault, but it's the union's fault all the same. Seems legit.

That is not what I was referring to. Anyway...Hostess went bancrupt like 10 years ago and then they filed ch.11 last January. It was no secret they were in SERIOUS financial trouble. They offered the union a contract. Basically a final chance to possibly recover. Instead, the union went on strike. No mediation, no formal rejection etc, they just went on strike. Hostess was not secretive that if they did not accept the contract, they were liquidating the company. The judge did not understand why the union was even on strike prior to formally rejecting the contract or attempting mediation first.

Someone is going to buy that shit, so the liquidation threat is pretty much bogus posturing. Grupo Bimbo or someone else like that is going to snap them up quick like a bunny. So basically the company just used liquidation as a threat because the workers making less than $20 per hours should take it on the chin while they get 300% raises. Total bullshit. Once again, you've bit onto nothing more than GOP posturing and bloviation like a dog with a bone. Workers get nothing, management makes insane amounts of money, yet this is somehow the union's fault.

Oh, and while trying to liquidate, Hostess asks permission to pay bonuses to their managers. So much for being out of money.

The bonuses, if that is what they really are, may possibly be payments to allow certain members of management to stay on the assist in the transistion or liquidation. Possibly members of management had a contract for certain payments regardless of the outcome. They (Hostess) filed for bankruptcy before, maybe they had to make agreements with management in order to have them to stay. Fact is, I have no idea why or if they are paying for additional services or past agreements or simply raiding the company (doubtful). The union was offered a contract, they struck. Now they have to deal with that fallout.

The bonuses, if that is what they really are, may possibly be payments to allow certain members of management to stay on the assist in the transistion or liquidation. Possibly members of management had a contract for certain payments regardless of the outcome. They (Hostess) filed for bankruptcy before, maybe they had to make agreements with management in order to have them to stay. Fact is, I have no idea why or if they are paying for additional services or past agreements or simply raiding the company (doubtful). The union was offered a contract, they struck. Now they have to deal with that fallout.

I'm sorry but no company facing bankruptcy should give out bonuses. That's just bullshit. Like when the banks got bailled out the CEO'S got billion dollars bonuses for what driving the company down. Its pretty much the same thing as Hotess is doing. Killing the buisness but yet accepting fucking bonuses. Oh and hey MOTO when you attack me for posting this watch your words and be nice.